Identify the Xenmark account tied to your configured token: returns user_id, display_name, and company without exposing email, plan, billing, or role.
Identify the Xenmark account behind the configured token: user_id, display_name, company. Never returns e-mail, plan, billing or role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content beyond that: the explicit negative scope ("Never returns e-mail, plan, billing or role") and the dependence on a configured token, which tells the agent not to promise data it cannot get.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence: purpose first, then the returned fields, then the exclusions. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must describe returns itself, and it does so by naming the three fields and the four it never returns. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., missing/expired token) or the return envelope, which is a minor gap for an otherwise self-contained zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly spends no words on inputs, instead describing outputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("Identify") and a precise resource ("the Xenmark account behind the configured token"), then enumerates the returned fields (user_id, display_name, company). This is unmistakably distinct from the list_*/review/find siblings, which all operate on projects, drawings, revisions, or comments rather than session identity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "behind the configured token" makes the usage context clear: this answers questions about the current session's identity rather than any artifact, so it has no overlap with the list/find siblings. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming an alternative, which keeps it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.